Badly written 2020 code

[Strathead]

So I teach 2nd year apprenticeship and they teach me. I teach from MH Electrical exam preparation and they got the answer key reference wrong, and it pointed out a badly collated new two part code. The question was: The required receptacle outlet for heating and air conditioning and refrigeration equipment, shall not be connecting to the load side of the equipment disconnect and shall provide ground fault protection for personnel. - true or false. The answer is "true" but their code reference is 210.63(A) which has no reference to GFCI protection.

A small handful of my students jumped me correctly, when I said it should have been false, because code section 210.8E (another new code) says (E) Equipment requiring servicing. GFCI protection shall be required for receptacles required by 210.63.

Both are new codes. In no universe should this have been added in disjointed locations without a cross reference in 210.63. Very poor attention to detail. And the text book needs to have both code references, for the answer so other instructors don't look as foolish as me.

 

[ptonsparky]

So I teach 2nd year apprenticeship and they teach me. I teach from MH Electrical exam preparation and they got the answer key reference wrong, and it pointed out a badly collated new two part code. The question was: The required receptacle outlet for heating and air conditioning and refrigeration equipment, shall not be connecting to the load side of the equipment disconnect and shall provide ground fault protection for personnel. - true or false. The answer is "true" but their code reference is 210.63(A) which has no reference to GFCI protection.

A small handful of my students jumped me correctly, when I said it should have been false, because code section 210.8E (another new code) says (E) Equipment requiring servicing. GFCI protection shall be required for receptacles required by 210.63.

Both are new codes. In no universe should this have been added in disjointed locations without a cross reference in 210.63. Very poor attention to detail. And the text book needs to have both code references, for the answer so other instructors don't look as foolish as me.

Once that part was added, I agree, it should reference both.
I hope you told them "Good Job!, This was a test, and you passed."

 

[don_resqcapt19]

There is no issue with the code writing...the intent is that you will find most of the GFCI requirements in 210.8. However there was a Public Input to add GFCI language to 210.63 for the 2026 code.
I agree that the test prep answer key should have included both code references.

 

[Strathead]

There is no issue with the code writing...the intent is that you will find most of the GFCI requirements in 210.8. However there was a Public Input to add GFCI language to 210.63 for the 2026 code.
I agree that the test prep answer key should have included both code references.

I think that is an issue with the code writing. We have a requirement to:
"210.63 Equipment Requiring Servicing. A 125-volt, single-
phase, 15- or 20-ampere-rated receptacle outlet shall be
installed at an accessible location within 7.5 m (25 ft) of the
equipment as specified in 210.63(A) and (B)."

If the 210.8 code section hadn't been new, then there would be a marginal argument that a cross reference wasn't needed. If the required receptacle were outside for example then a GFCI is already required. It would have been very simple and really the right thing to have just stated GFCI receptacle in 210.63, but to not reference the other new code and not let you know that the receptacle needs to be a GFCI is not OK. It isn't like a GFCI is instinctive in this application of indoor equipment.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I think that is an issue with the code writing. We have a requirement to:
"210.63 Equipment Requiring Servicing. A 125-volt, single-
phase, 15- or 20-ampere-rated receptacle outlet shall be
installed at an accessible location within 7.5 m (25 ft) of the
equipment as specified in 210.63(A) and (B)."

If the 210.8 code section hadn't been new, then there would be a marginal argument that a cross reference wasn't needed. If the required receptacle were outside for example then a GFCI is already required. It would have been very simple and really the right thing to have just stated GFCI receptacle in 210.63, but to not reference the other new code and not let you know that the receptacle needs to be a GFCI is not OK. It isn't like a GFCI is instinctive in this application of indoor equipment.

The coordinating committee has been working to have the CMP not provide references to other code sections and let 90.3 do its job.

 

[ptonsparky]

The issue is the phrasing of the question.

 

[PaulMmn]

The issue is the phrasing of the question.

Doesn't the code say something like "provide a receptacle outlet for servicing of the equipment?" The question as phrased doesn't indicate that they're referring to the convenience outlet for the serviceman!